9911796707
TMI Blog1996 (4) TMI 391X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Jha for the Respondent. JUDGMENT This appeal under section 483 of the Companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") (wrongly styled as L.P.A.), is against the order and judgment dated December 11, 1986, of the learned single judge, whereby he dismissed the application of the appellant filed under section 446 of the Companies Act, 1956. The petitioner-appellant filed a suit for rec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... execution proceeding in order to take possession of the property, which he has purchased in execution of the decree. This application was filed under section 446 of the Companies Act some time in 1986. This was dismissed and against this order the present appeal has been preferred. Under sub-section (2) of section 441 of the Act, proceedings for winding up of a company by the court shall be deem ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ase, the winding up of a company by the court shall be deemed to commence at the time of the presentation of the petition for the winding up." If, we look at this section at this stage, the contention of Mr. Sharma may be correct. Mr. Ghosh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents drew our attention towards section 537 of the Act, which is quoted as under : "537. Avoidance of cert ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... court with respect to any property after commencement of the winding up of the company shall be void. In the present case before us, winding up of the company commenced, as noted above, on September 30, 1977. The sale has been held without leave of the court after the commencement of the winding up. Thus, section 537 of the Act squarely covered the case against the appellant. We also refer to th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd any help to the appellant. Mr. Sharma also relied on the case of Janak Raj v. Gurudial Singh, AIR 1967 SC 608. This decision is under Order 21, rules 89, 92 and 94 of the Code of Civil Procedure and held that the title of the purchaser relates back to the date of sale and not to the date of its confirmation. We are unable to appreciate as to how this decision is applicable in the case of the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
